Working Students and Precarious Employment: A Latent Profile Analysis

Combining work and study is challenging for most students, especially when they are in more precarious work contexts. Identifying which students struggle with this would better inform interventions and advance theory. Using a sample of working tertiary students (N = 415) and a person-centered research approach (latent profile analysis), we identified five different sub-groups of students based on indicators of precarious employment– high precariousness (7.3%), inflexible with poor conditions (25.0%), average (27.4%), flexible (14.3%), and low precariousness (26.0%). These subgroups differed on study, career development, mental health, and biographic factors. The high precariousness group reported more need for recovery from work and lower study engagement, career agency, wellbeing, subjective social status, and financial comfort compared to the low precariousness group. Implications for educators and employers, as well as theory, are discussed.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Career Assessment
Published
2026-01-02
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/10690727251411293
Primary Topic
Employment and Welfare Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Working Students and Precarious Employment: A Latent Profile Analysis

Peter A. Creed, Andrea Bialocerkowski, Sujin Kim, Michelle Hood
Journal of Career Assessment
Employment and Welfare Studies
article

Working Students and Precarious Employment: A Latent Profile Analysis

Peter A. Creed, Andrea Bialocerkowski, Sujin Kim, Michelle Hood
article en

Abstract

Combining work and study is challenging for most students, especially when they are in more precarious work contexts. Identifying which students struggle with this would better inform interventions and advance theory. Using a sample of working tertiary students (N = 415) and a person-centered research approach (latent profile analysis), we identified five different sub-groups of students based on indicators of precarious employment– high precariousness (7.3%), inflexible with poor conditions (25.0%), average (27.4%), flexible (14.3%), and low precariousness (26.0%). These subgroups differed on study, career development, mental health, and biographic factors. The high precariousness group reported more need for recovery from work and lower study engagement, career agency, wellbeing, subjective social status, and financial comfort compared to the low precariousness group. Implications for educators and employers, as well as theory, are discussed.

Journal of Career Assessment
Griffith University (AU), James Cook University (AU)
No poverty
Openalex Percentile: Top 99%
Employment and Welfare Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.